Auto Insurance Claims: 3rd party hit and run totalled my van, umpd, insurance fraud

Question
Hello Richard,
I was involved in a 3 car accident on the freeway. I live in CA. I was hit by a car who was hit by a semi truck. The truck was identified only to the extent that we (the gentleman who hit me and myself) knew it was a red semi pulling an empty flatbed. I was too busy trying to keep my van under control after the car hit me to even try to think about getting ID on the semi. I wasn't even thinking about that at the time...just trying to stay alive! I have UMPD and a deductible waiver - realized this when examining my policy after the accident - I at first didn't even think I had collision coverage. No one stopped to give witness, although the freeway was full of lunchtime drivers. Someone did, however call 911, because a Highway Patrol officer showed up very shortly after the accident and took a report.

Liability was denied by the car's insurance company (the one that hit me) based upon the police report which stated that the accident was caused by a hit and run. My insurance company will cover my van under the collision part of my policy, minus my deductible of course, and will not honor the UMPD or the deductible waiver because the 3rd party who caused the accident was not caught and therefore cannot be proven to be an uninsured driver and my insurance company says that this is what my policy states - that the driver or vehicle of a hit and run needs to be able to be fully identified so that they can figure out whether or not the hit and run vehicle/driver was uninsured/underinsured.

I understand that insurance fraud is rampant, but can't understand why my insurance won't honor this claim when it is legitimate.

Any help that you could give me in how to deal with my own insurance company to get them to honor the UMPD and deductible waiver coverage that I have been paying for would be greatly appreciated. I can understand that insurance companies have to have some protection against fraud or people claiming to have been in a hit and run accident that actually in truth they themselves caused, but it also seems a good double-loophole for insurance companies to require that the hit and run driver/vehicle be fully identified to the extent that they can be prosecuted or subrogated? because if they are identified then the insurance company can then deny the UMPD and waiver because the person who caused the accident was found and perhaps had insurance and therefore they can recover the loss they paid to you, without having to reimburse you or waive the deductible OR, if they cannot be fully identified, as in my case, then the insurance company can say that it doesn't fit into the UMPD portion of the policy, also salvaging the deductible for themselves. I just can't understand why they won't honor this portion of my policy when it is obvious by the damage on our vehicles and the fact that we, the driver of the car that hit my van and myself) both relayed, to the police officer, similar facts of what happened to cause the accident, separate of one another, meaning we didn't fix our stories or say to the police what each other had said. The accident was caused by a hit and run.

I hope that you can understand my writing and unravel and lend clarity for me. Thank you.

Answer
Hi Ruth,

I'm sorry you are in this situation.

First you must understand that an insurance policy is a contract. So you must understand that whatever the actual wording of the policy is will be what is done. You stated that the insurance company said their policy says ... You should ask them to point you to the specific wording in your policy that says that. If the wording is there, then there is likely not much you can do. If it is not there then you can fight them. You can also contact your state insurance commissioners office to see what there stance on the situation is. In my experience, as long as there is independent verification that a "fantom" vehicle was at fault and actually existed, it should be covered under the UMPD coverage. The driver of the other car who made the same statement as you should be considered independent verification.

I hope this helps
Richard Hixenbaugh